Originally Posted by viewguysf
In my view, a shadow ordinance has value if it isn't overly draconian. There is discussion about one in NYC and elsewhere. It's Prop M that's the problem.
Yes, I do agree the shadow ordinance has justifiable cause. As a user of parks and playgrounds, my young daughter and I support it, at least where it makes sense. It is also probably one of the best ways to curb what some may view as excessive height in San Francisco. There are parks and public open spaces all over the city needing such protection. I've have also seen the shadow studies over Central Park in New York.
One thing I'm beginning to realize is that the crown on Salesforce doesn't really look all that transparent. It looks like it will cast a significant shadow, so is 1070 feet the actual maximum height for the building shadow, instead of 1000 feet, or 970 for the (mechanical) roof?